Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 135

Tue, 15 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: Jews at war [was: R' Angel & Geirus Redux] (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Is having a good time ossur (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Sholom Aleichem [was: Tinok Shenishba] (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: air holes (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: air holes (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Kazayyit size (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: K'zayis as weight not volume? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (R Davidovich)
• 9. Jewish Owned Bakeries Open on Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Daas Torah (T613K@aol.com)

 
 
From: "Michael Makovi" _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewinddale@gmail.com) 

>>I  suppose the logic makes sense, that if drafting is mandatory and you
cannot  (safely) dodge, then there's nothing you can do and nothing you
are required  to do.

But OTOH, why is there no issue of sacrificing your own life  rather than 
murder?<<

>>>>>
Because the other guys are shooting at you.   Self-defense.





--Toby  Katz
=============





**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080414/b69450e7/attachment-0001.htm 

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:20:53AM -0400, R Prof. Yitzchak Levine
wrote to Areivim:
: From http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/1193/
:
: Five Star Pesach
: by Jonathan Rosenblum
: Mishpacha <http://www.mishpacha.com>
: April 11, 2008
:
: I will never forget an address by Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman...
: he thundered: This topic represents a fundamental mistake. There is no
: ruchnius amidst gashmius. To the extent that a
: person is living in the world of gashmius he is removed from ruchnius.
...
: I was reminded of those words recently on a recent trip to Los
: Angeles, where I had a rare opportunity to speak with a rav whose
: wisdom has always impressed me. In the course of our conversation, he
: asked to me, "What would you say is the greatest threat to Yiddishkeit
: today?" ... "Pesach in hotels," turned out to be the winning answer...
: the Pesach hotel industry takes what should be one of the ultimate
: spiritual experiences of every Jew's life and encases it in a thick
: wrapper of materialism. Read the advertisements, he told me: "No
: gebrochts" right next to "24 hour tea bar;" "Daily daf hayomi" next
: to "Karate, go-carts, and jeeping for the kids."

To which I replied there:
> I'm glad no one told people from Rebbe to R' Kalman Zev Wissotzky that
> there was a setirah between enjoying one's wealth and a life of
> ruchni'us.

> I might be jealous of someone who could afford a hotel for Pesach (or
> find a hotel willing to house his family in exchange for giving
> shiurim).

> It's hard to have the kind of seider I would want in a hotel setting.
> But that's a different issue altogether.

RET questioned whether this last paragraph is true. A family can get
their own area if they so request. But since "that's a different issue
altogether", I'll leave that question on Areivim.

R' Joshua Meisner replied on Mon, April 14, 2008 1:01am to my post:
: Rebbe specifically praised himself for not allowing even his small
: finger to benefit from the pleasures of this world.  Presumably he
: learned this in the shiur of R' Yehuda bar Ilai, who refused a gift
: cloak given to him by Rebbe's father.
:
: Is the basic principle of REW's statement that to the extent that a
: person is living in the world of gashmius he is removed from ruchnius
: significantly different than that of the Midrash cited by the Ramchal
: in ch. 13 of MY that before a person davens that Torah enter his body,
: he should daven that food and drink not enter his body?

I blogged about MY's understanding after our last iteration on the
subject. See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/01/perishus.shtml>. I
believe that one needs to compare what the Ramchal writes in all three
peraqim to piece together what he means, since in different places he
seems to be soser himself.

In pereq 13, perishus is defined as "the understanding being that a
person should withdraw and separate himself from anything which might
give rise to something that could bring about evil".

In pereq 14, it's "Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke
of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world
only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses
anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the
pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls,
conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times
when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah."

In 15, he gives both, "THE BEST WAY for a man to acquire Separation is
to regard the inferior quality of the pleasures of this world, both in
point of their own insignificance and in point of the great evils to
which they are prone to give rise."

But then the Ramchal continues, "For what inclines one's nature to
these pleasures ad sheyatzrikh kol kach vetachbulos lehafrisho meihem
is the gullibility of the eyes, their tendency to be deceived by good
and pleasing superficial appearances..."

A pretty straightforward description of addiction, or that which
tempts beyond one's ability to handle rationally.

So perishus seems to be of three flavors:
1- Chumros (perishus bedin), which I didn't discuss in the above since
it's not on topic to our relationship with gashmius
2- Avoiding that which tempts one into cheit
3- Avoiding things which cause addiction-like loss of self-control

Nothing about avoiding gashmius in general -- if it's gashmius the
person can harness for avodas Hashem.

This fits the notion that gashmius is a tool. Whether it aids ruchnius
or ch"v not depends on how one weilds the tool.

So much for how I think the Ramchal is to be understood (as it's the
only way I could figure out to make him self-consistent). But RJM
mentions his citation of the Yalqut (Devarim 830), "Before a man
davens that words of Torah be absorbed into his innards, let him pray
that food and drink not be absorbed therein." I think this is an apt
expression of #3. Torah should be absorbed not into one's stomach, but
the core of one's soul. Ch"v one turns the core of one's soul into a
bama to serve chocolate, alcohol or nicotine. I similarly met people
who based their entire lives around money. For this to mean a less
extreme notion, such as the mere acquisition of hana'ah, the parallel
to Torah in the first would be broken.


I quoted RSSkop on this thread (here on Avodah, this subject line),
that to the extent that one commits one's efforts to avodas Hashem,
even one's luxury and relaxation that are necessary for a happy and
sane life acquire qedushah. This goes beyond the tool idea. A person
who lives to serve HQBH even relaxes to serve HQBH. Intent to relax in
order to serve need not be conscious; it is there de facto is that's
how he utilizes the emotional balance gained.

However, the seifa of that haqdamah says something even more amazing:
> The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol
> and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since].
> Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so
> too it is advice for all who receive the Torah.  Each must prepare
> Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According
> to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to
> receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets
> are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses
> fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in
> Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart,
> this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of
> Torah....

> To my mind this can be connected to what our sages explained in
> Nedarim (folio 38) on the verse "carve for yourself". Moses didn't
> get rich except through the extras of the Tablets. This is an amazing
> idea ? [is it possible that] Hashem couldn't find any way to make
> Moses wealthy except through the extras of the Tablets? But through
> what we said, we can explain this. Through this change of how Tablets
> are to be readied, there was given opportunity for those who receive
> the Torah to fear, to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah.
> Through this it becomes appropriate for anyone entering the gates of
> Torah to separate themselves from all the preoccupations of his world.
> As they interpret the verse "it is not on the other side of the sea'
> it is not found at salesman or importers."

> However, if the first Tablets had remained, then it would be
> sufficient to establish an easy hour for Torah, and spend most of your
> time trading and buying. For this reason the Holy One showed Moses as
> a sign to all who accept the Torah that He would prepare for them
> their income through the making of the Tablet; any "extras that are
> carved away" will provide them with income.

So, according to RSS, "pesol lekha" is a siman ledoros that one must
hone one's middos in order to be prepared to acquire Torah. But -- and
here is the amazing part -- it is through that honing that one is
misparneis! Thus MRAH smashed the luchos, insuring that Torah learning
requires preparatory work on yir'ah and (other) middos, which in turn
is the avodah inherent in our working for a parnasah.


As for Rebbe's little fingers:

According to the Ben Yehoyada, the "little finger" represents Edom.
And thus Rebbe is saying that he bedvka didn't get hana'ah from his
contacts in Edom, that the relationship was used purely for the
benefit of Kelal Yisrael.

R' Shemu'el Heida (17th cent) relates the idea to a Tana deVei Eliyahu
Zuta (ch. 19), in which Yaaqov avinu tells Eisav in the womb that he
(Yaaqov) would take Olam haBa, and Eisav could have Olam haZeh for
himself. When they meet in the beginning of Vayishlach, Eisav sees the
wealth, the wives and the children, and asks what became of our deal?
And Yaaqov explains that this is the little HQBH gave him in order to
accomplish his tafqid and acquire OhB. Similar, RSH adds, Rebbe was
saying that he didn't take any hana'ah for himself -- only the hana'ah
necessary to accomplish his tafqid. (Interestingly, this also ties
Rebbe's words back to Eisav/Edom.)

RSH, who I admit I never heard of until looking for a maqor for my
above extrapolations, pretty clearly states my thesis.

This notion of wealth being a tool, and no less or more moral than the
task to which it's being used also gives us a way to explain how
Rebbe's fingers do not differ from R' Eliezer's "mikan, letzaddiqim
shechaviv memonam yoseir migufam". (Chulin 91a)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

PS: I should admit that I used to think as RJRosenblum and RJM did,
until I realized how much my opinion was tainted by my own qin'ah of
not having the money for such a hotel stay. Then I tried to formulate
a contrary opinion, evaluated both, and switched sides.

PPS: That said, I'm not saying that everyone manages to walk the line
I attributed to the Ramchal...

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, April 14, 2008 12:15 pm, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: My understanding is that a malach is an  intelligent being -- in fact,
: a HIGHLY intelligent being -- and not a machine or  a robot.  A malach
: lacks bechira only because it (he?) knows Hashem so  intimately that
: having any will or desire other than what Hashem wants is simply
: logically and intellectually impossible for such an intellectually
: and  spiritually superior being.

That's the opinion of the Or Samei'ach. The Rambam on which he is
commenting says otherwise, that there have no power to make decisions,
not even in the potential. And in fact, it looks like he defines a
mal'akh to be the spark of Divine Intellect necessary to cause on
event. IOW, the mal'akh /is/ the decision (Moreh 2:6). See our
discussion in v2n24 or so onward.

RYGB once asserted that perhaps leshitas haOS, mal'akhim when sent
down to olam hazeh can make wrong choices, which would explain Yuma
67b, where the gemara describes them as the sinful Benei Elohim.

I also wonder if the OS's sevara rules out mal'akhim making the same
kind of emes-vs-sheqer mistake as Adam qodem hacheit. Always knowing
which side is tov is different than always knowing the amito shel
davar about what the sides are.

: You can ask
: a malach for something that is in  the malach's power to do -- for
: example, it is in the malach's power to bentsh  you, if and when
: Hashem wants you to be bentshed. This is no more davening to the
: malach than asking your mother for a glass of water is  davening to
: your mother.

And then there is asking a gadol beTorah for his berakhah. One step
further: requests of meisim to stand forth as meilitzei yosher. (As
opposed to wishes to Hashem that he listen to them as such.) At this
point, the Gra prohibits, others permit.

There is a spectrum here, and it's hard to define exactly where one
has broached the 5th ikkar. In
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/06/angels-and-idols.shtml>, I suggest
that many of the classical forms of AZ were actually the worship of
real mal'akhim. That elilim aren't fake powers, they are secondary
powers being placed in the wrong position. Using the Rambam's
statement about the origins of AZ in Hil' AZ 1:1 and some statements
about history (one made by RSRH, the rest pulled off encyclopedias), I
try to show that the religion of the Eigel worshippers and of Malkhus
Yisra'el was keruvim worship. Kerub was a bull-headed god in the
Chaldean pantheon, similar in role to the Egyptian Apis, whose worship
involved many of the trappings Yerav'am imitated. The chayos have one
face that is described as that of a keruv in one place, and that of a
bull in another. And if the eigel was to replace (lehavdil) MRAH as a
conduit to G-d, then it was very much in the role of a keruv, and an
alleged agalah of tefillos.

Which makes requests of angels very close to the end of the slippery
slope. And perhaps one might argue the reverse of RRW: Praying to
entities that have no free will is silly, but praying to entities that
can be thought of as autonomous is placing a real layer between man
and Creator.

On Sun, April 13, 2008 3:12 am, R Arie Folger (der Baseler) wrote:
: So you say. There are halakhic authorities that disagree. AFAIR, in
: Chaim Berlin, yevorkhuni leshalom was substituted for the usual text,
: because apparently Maharal had a problem with it. Now I never saw that
: Maharal and don't even know whether the song is old enough for this
: account to be true, but the minhag of saying yevorkhuni does exist.
:
: BTW, others, such as some Sefardim and Bobover 'Hassiedim, skip the
: last stanza or change tzeitkhem to betzeitkhem, so as not to chase the
: angels out.

Some Chassidim (eg Boston; I don't know where it originates, but the
benchers given out at my bar mitzvah were Bostoner, and therefore I
still own one) have 5 verses. After Borkhuni and before Tzeisekhem
they have "Shivtikhem Leshalom".

After learning about the Gaon and thinking about the Rambam on AZ and
worshiping Hashem's entourage, I have problems saying the verse as
"borkhuni". Not halachic problems, kavanah ones -- I can no longer say
the words with any kavanah without thoughts of kefirah running through
my head. However, my understanding for the minhag of saying 4 verses
has to do with there being 4 rungs in Yaaqov's sulam, so that the
spaces above, between them, and below the first rung to the ground
make 5 olamos. I am therefore unhappy with the solution of just
skipping the verse, as that messes up the author's numeric symbolism.
I therefore now use "Shivtikhem" instead. When company is over, I try
to mumble the word, so that they don't hear me being poreish min
hatzibur.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:19:45PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: That is, the cube is 100% olive fruit, and an olive does indeed measure
: one full kezayit...

Including the pit. If you are eating, a zayis (even of the right breed
and breeding) would be less than a kezayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:19:45PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: That is, the cube is 100% olive fruit, and an olive does indeed measure
: one full kezayit...

Including the pit. If you are eating, a zayis (even of the right breed
and breeding) would be less than a kezayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' David Bannett wrote:
> I wrote some years ago on the list about the
> measurements made by R' Avi Greenfield on the sizes
> on a circle of hand matza of 1.8 mm thickness:
> Mishna Brura:                 60 cc    20.5 cm diameter
> Shiurin shel Torah:          50 cc    19 cm dia
> Chazon Ish (in Kuntres)   33 cc    15 cm dia
> R' Chayyim Na'eh            27 cc    14 cm dia
> Chazon Ish at his seder   17 cc    11 cm dia (l'fi R' Ch. Kanievsky)
> R' Chayyim Benish          7.5 cc   7.4 cm dia
> R' Chayyim Volzhiner       3   cc    4.7 cm dia

I see the numbers, but I do not understand them. Is someone suggesting that
we know how thick the matzah of R' Chayyim Volzhiner was? Or that of the
Chofetz Chaim? To any degree of accuracy at all?

Especially given the fact that a single handmade matza can easily be of
non-uniform thickness, how can anyone presume to know that a given matzah
was closer to 1.5 mm or to 2.0 mm? And especially without putting a ruler
to it!!!

(PS: The reference to "some years ago on the list" might be referring to
the post at http://www.aish
das.org/avodah/vol04/v04n019.shtml#05  But if so, it offers even less
data than this post does.)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for self-employed health insurance.  Compare quotes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3mJcCagfSU5twvoTvxn8mYWgMt978Hy05rjcXtCFoR1DIDxQ/

Ken Bloom wrote:

> Yalkut Yosef (in the halachot of the seder, Motzi Matzah) says that one
> measures according to mass in all cases (even when it's not Pesach),
> because measuring by mass is easier (just use a scale) than measuring by
> volume (which requires compressing the air out of the food or grindingit
> up or something). Since the Kaf HaHayyim says likewise, this is not
> ROY's innovation -- it's accepted sephardic mesorah.

It's not sephardic mesorah, it's just common sense, to use an easy
method of measurement instead of a difficult one.  But having determined
the mass, one must then apply a conversion factor to get the volume,
which (lechol hade'ot) is what matters halachically.

In the case of matzah, the traditional conversion factor happens
to be 1.  It appears that experimental data contradicts that tradition;
if verified then the practise needs to be re-evaluated.  Maybe sefardi
matzot are denser than the ones Ashkenazim use today.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

I brought this up on a Hirhurim comment thread, but was ignored.  So let me
bring it up here.

Motzi-Matza. The practice of eating two k'zeisim is cited in shulchan Aruch
O"C 475, even though it is only quoted by the Rosh, (and then of course the
Tur) and not the Rambam or Rif, who say that one k'zayis is enough.  At
first and second and third glance, this seems to be based on the perceived
need to have one kzayis from the top matza and one kzayis from the middle
matza.  "Ein Osin Mizvos Chavilos Chavilos" seems to mean we don't bundle
mitzvos together, but take each one separately.

What are the two mitzvos under discussion?  What is the Mitzvah of "Motzi"?
Eating lechem at a yom-Tov meal, I presume.  This is considered a separate
mitzvah from the one to eat a kzayis of matza on Leil Tes-Vov?  The Biyur
Halacha doesn't understand the need for two kzeisim and all but rejects the
Shulchan Aruch (and Rosh's) approach, commenting that it is cited nowhere in
Shas or the other main rishonim.

Since this practice is associated with the fact that the bracha is made over
two matzos, is there any reason for a person who is not eating from the
matzos located on the seder plate to eat two k'zeisim? After all, this
person is not eating one k'zayis from the top matza and one k'zayis from the
middle matza anyway. He's eating from the box matzos that the host is
passing around.

Raffy

PS As an aside, would the Shulchan's Oruch's preference for swallowing both
kezeisim simultaneously disprove the Noda Beyehudah and Chazon Ish's shiurim
right off the bat?!

-- 
RD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080414/eb956fc5/attachment.htm 

The Chicago Rabbinical Council recently sent out the following:

April 10, 2008

Nisan 5 5768

Although all of the Jewish owned companies under cRc certification 
sell their chometz for Pesach, the following Jewish owned bakeries 
will be producing during Pesach:

Bulldog Bakery, Solomon Gourmet, Eli's Cheesecake & Today's Temptations.

All products manufactured by these companies during Pesach will NOT 
bear the cRc logo on the package. Consumers should be aware of 
packaging not bearing the cRc logo when purchasing any of these 
products after Pesach.

I sent the following email to Rabbi Sholem Fishbane of the CRC:

Does this mean that you go in and kasher these places after Pesach?

Do these places sell their Chometz? Are there Jews actually baking 
Chometz on Pesach in these places?

Y. Levine

Rabbi Fishbane's  reply:

Yes, we sell their chometz so there is no need to kasher.

I then emailed him and asked:

But who supervises the place during Pesach? How does one know that 
they are using kosher ingredients? Are you supervising the baking of 
Chometz on Pesach?

Rabbi Fishbane's reply:

Our mashgichim visit them during Pesach as well.

None of this sits well with me personally, although it may be ok 
according to halacha. How can an observant Jew go into a Jewish owned 
bakery that is baking chometz on Pesach? What about Moris Ayin? How 
can one justify setting up a procedure that allows Jews to bake 
chometz on Pesach? Of course, on Pesach the bakery is not owned by 
Jews, since the owner has sold his chometz. However, how many people 
actually know this?

The fact that this sort of thing is being done at Dunkin donuts 
stores does not sit right with me. However, these stores are owned by 
gentiles, so it is certainly different. Nonetheless, the idea of a 
fellow with a Yarmulka going into a place that sells chometz on 
Pesach to make sure that it is kosher, strikes me as strange.

I await edification from those more knowledgeable than me.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080415/360a06d7/attachment.htm 

 
I had written:

"This is  a pretty good description of how da'as Torah works, if anyone is  
still wondering about the definition of that term.  The  "personal" opinions  
of a 
big talmid chacham are never just  personal, and tend to gain wide  
acceptance 
among those who  respect him and who accept his authority.  Some  of those  
who 
move in YU circles seem to be allergic to the very idea of "da'as  Torah" but 
whether they use the term or not, that's what  they're following when  they 
accede to the psak of a Torah  scholar whom they respect and whose wisdom  
they 
acknowledge to  be greater than their own. " [--TK]  




To which RRW wrote:
 

>>So are you  saying a big talmid chochom can never be  wrong?<<



>>>>>>
This is a very common misconception of what da'as Torah means.  
 
Right wing Orthodox (RWO) -- the people who tend to actually believe that  
there is such a thing as "da'as Torah"  -- never think that their rabbanim,  
poskim and gedolim are infallible.  It is only people outside the RWO orbit  who 
mistakenly imagine that RWO people believe in something like papal  
infallibility.  
 
The true meaning of da'as Torah, as understood by the RWO Jews who actually  
believe in it, is that the more pious and the greater a talmid chacham is, the 
 more likely it is that he will give you good advice in your personal life 
and  that he will give Klal Yisrael good advice on a communal level.  Naturally  
people in need of good advice and counseling will seek out those who are 
wiser  than themselves, but no one imagines that a gadol can 'never' be wrong.  
 
At times, it is obvious in retrospect that a rav or rebbe who was consulted  
on some matter must have had some spark of ruach hakodesh, some Divine 
guidance  in the words that came out of his mouth, when one sees the sometimes 
amazing  prescience of what some Torah leaders have said, and how things worked out 
in  the end.  At other times -- less often -- it is clear in retrospect that a 
 given gadol made an error in judgment and did not give the best advice.   
Nevertheless the statistical odds are that the more Torah a person knows -- and  
the more he lives according to the dictates of the Torah -- the wiser he will 
be  in those areas that are not directly addressed in the Shulchan Aruch.   
Those talmidim of RYBS who followed his psak regarding WTG for instance, were  
following da'as Torah.
 
 
One other thing I would like to say about da'as Torah is that sometimes it  
is clear in retrospect that the Hashgacha deliberately withheld knowledge or  
ruach hakodesh from gedolim in a certain time, because "gezeira hee  milfanai." 
 But such cases are extremely rare in history.

 
Da'as Torah means that a person who is great in Torah has a feel for what  
the Torah would want, even in circumstances that are not explicitly  addressed 
in the halachic literature.  It does not mean, and has never been  understood 
to mean, that tzaddikim are infallible and can never err.  I  hope that I have 
sufficiently explained it so that this particular  misunderstanding -- which 
has been expressed so many times here on Avodah --  will not arise again in 
these pages.  Even Moshe Rabbeinu was not  infallible.
 
BTW I have noticed that the people who are quick to point out that gedolim  
can be wrong, are the people least likely to consult a rav or posek when issues 
 arise needing Torah wisdom.  This is a grave mistake.  In Pirkei Avos  it 
says "Asei lecha rav."  Even a person who is a big T'C himself sometimes  needs 
to consult another T'C about certain matters.  Condescension towards  rabbanim 
and poskim in general ("well they're not infallibe you know") leads to  a 
lessening of Yiras Shomayim.
 


--Toby  Katz
=============





**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080415/7a643468/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 135
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."